Re: Feduccia's delusion

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> >         In his 1999 second edition of his 1996 book, he writes (judging
> >from a review; I haven't read the book) that all similarities between
> >Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx are due to convergence. Then he argues
that
> >Compsognathus, like Sinosauropteryx, was an aquatic lake dweller, while
> >Archaeopteryx is totally arboreal!
>
> Well put David.

Reference of the review:
Richard Maddra: Flights of fancy, Dinosaur Society Quarterly 4(1) ( = Flight
special issue) p. 28 ( = back cover) (November 2000)

"Feduccia's arguments might have been convincing, but for the quality of
scholarship on display. Had I written an essay of this quality as an
undergraduate, I would have been slated for it - and rightly so.

Take this example. Feduccia comments that the 'trees-down' theory of bird
flight is intuitively facile and pleasing. [Seen the movie Pleasantville?
>:-> ] How these qualities affect the theory's validity is quite beyond me -
yet they obviously matter to Feduccia. Why else would he mention them? Of
course, such qualities are irrelevant in determining validity. After all,
the idea that the Sun orbited the Earth was once considered intuitively
facile and obvious.

Unfortunately, the chapters dealing with dinosaurs and the origin of birds
do not seem to rise above this level. Feduccia seems to proceed by omission
and assertion. Having asserted that the similarities between *Compsognathus*
and *Archaeopteryx* are due to convergence, he then goes on to argue that
both *Sinosauropteryx* and *Compsognathus* are both aquatic [semi-, I hope]
lake dwellers, whilst *Archaeopteryx* is arboreal. Need I say more?

The aquatic status of the above dinosaurs rests on the supposed manual fin
of the French *Compsognathus* [AAARRGH! AAARRGH! AAAHRRR!!!], and the idea
that the fibers seen on *Sinosauropteryx* are really the remains of a tail
fin. It seems to have escaped Feduccia's attention that the long and thin
tapering shape of the latter's tail is radically different from that of the
[sic] crocodile." At least in the 1996 edition Feduccia retains semiaquatic
hadrosaurs that skew predator-prey ratios because they are so much easier
preserved than the terrestrial tyrannosaurs. AAARRGH etc..

> >From 'The Origin and Evolution of Birds':
> "Although it is relatively easy to uncover superficial whole-animal
> resemblance caused by convergence, such as the examples of birds just
> mentioned [e.g. great auks and penguins], or in vertebrates - fish and
> dolphins, and bats and pterosaurs - convergence is often so complete, so
> elusive and subtle, that clues can be difficult to ascertain.  One case of
> massive or whole-animal convergence is that of Mesozoic, toothed divers
> (_Hesperornis_) and modern loons..."
>
> _Hesperornis_ looks like a loon presumably because it had a similar
> lifestyle as a foot-propelled diving bird.  (Statement of the Bleeding
> Obvious #1)

Feduccia 1996, p. 63:

>>
...+...+...Procellariiformes
    :    `...Pelecaniformes
    :
    `--+--Spheniscidae
         `--+--+--Hesperornithidae
              |    `--Baptornithidae
              `--+--Gaviidae
                   `--Podicipedidae

Cladogram resulting from cladistic analysis of loons, greebes, and
hesperornithiform birds by Cracraft (1986). Among other problems, this
scheme would require that *Hesperornis* evolve teeth on the maxilla [and
dentary] from edentulous ancestors. (Modified from Cracraft 1986) [no
explanation what the stippled lines mean]

[...] [big cladogram of birds]

Postulated cladistic relations of some major avian higher taxa by Cracraft.
This analysis shows monophyly of loons and grebes [boo], but Cracraft at
this point had abandoned the idea that the clade included the
hesperornithiforms [respectively improved his matrix!]. In this scheme,
hawks and owls also form a monophyletic group [boo]. (Modified from Cracraft
1988)
<<

Feduccia uses these as examples (along with *Hupehsuchus*) to show what
nonsense cladistics can produce. To cite out of context: "cladistics,
generally unable to deal with massive convergence,". Unfortunately he
doesn't take his own (or was it Martin's?) sayer "garbage in, garbage out"
literally enough -- apparently Cracraft's matrices aren't good enough (in
the second cladogram Neoaves is a hexachotomy, if that's the correct term),
but that doesn't tell whether the method of cladistic analysis is good
enough.

Enough of Two Minutes Hate :-)